A proposed new regulation

[prepgmat09]

A proposed new regulation would mandate that all new houses and apartments come with window guards, which prevent small children from climbing through windows. However, a landlord argues that because over 95% of babies headed toward windows are stopped by family members without incurring serious injuries, residential window guards will reduce losses only slightly, at most.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?

A. Most parents have not been formally trained on how to catch a baby.
B. As new homes are only a handful of existing housing, the regulation will have an extremely small area of effectiveness.
C. Installation of window guards in new residential buildings costs much less than smoke detectors.
D. In the locale where the regulation was proposed, the average time required to respond to a falling baby is lower than the national average.
E. The greatest harm from lack of window guards results when no family member is present.

[sk818020]

IMO the answer is E.

This is a pretty standard argument you'll begin to become aware of after a little more prep.

The counter given in the argument is that 95% of babies are stopped by family members before they harm themselves, therefore the proposes legislation will be ineffective. What if babies never go to the windows when family is around? Could the author possible make the conclusion? No way! E simply restates this point. The greatest potential for harm is when the family is not around.

Hope this helps.

Can you please confirm the OA?

Thanks,

Jared

[adi_800]

I think this one is similar to that Fire problem in OG11.
Answer is E.

[prepgmat09]

Thanks guys. OA is E.

@Jared: Thanks for the reasoning. It is now clear to me.